Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1341

control, N = 671

treatment, N = 671

p-value2

age

132

50.75 ± 12.55 (25 - 74)

51.09 ± 12.48 (25 - 74)

50.42 ± 12.70 (28 - 73)

0.760

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

134

>0.999

f

102 (76%)

51 (76%)

51 (76%)

m

32 (24%)

16 (24%)

16 (24%)

occupation

134

0.690

day_training

2 (1.5%)

2 (3.0%)

0 (0%)

full_time

16 (12%)

8 (12%)

8 (12%)

homemaker

12 (9.0%)

5 (7.5%)

7 (10%)

other

2 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

2 (3.0%)

part_time

24 (18%)

11 (16%)

13 (19%)

retired

36 (27%)

18 (27%)

18 (27%)

self_employ

6 (4.5%)

3 (4.5%)

3 (4.5%)

student

2 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

2 (3.0%)

t_and_e

2 (1.5%)

1 (1.5%)

1 (1.5%)

unemploy

32 (24%)

19 (28%)

13 (19%)

marital

134

0.756

cohabitation

1 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.5%)

divore

13 (9.7%)

9 (13%)

4 (6.0%)

in_relationship

4 (3.0%)

2 (3.0%)

2 (3.0%)

married

38 (28%)

19 (28%)

19 (28%)

none

68 (51%)

32 (48%)

36 (54%)

seperation

3 (2.2%)

2 (3.0%)

1 (1.5%)

widow

7 (5.2%)

3 (4.5%)

4 (6.0%)

edu

134

0.351

bachelor

34 (25%)

13 (19%)

21 (31%)

diploma

25 (19%)

16 (24%)

9 (13%)

hd_ad

3 (2.2%)

2 (3.0%)

1 (1.5%)

postgraduate

12 (9.0%)

5 (7.5%)

7 (10%)

primary

8 (6.0%)

2 (3.0%)

6 (9.0%)

secondary_1_3

16 (12%)

9 (13%)

7 (10%)

secondary_4_5

31 (23%)

18 (27%)

13 (19%)

secondary_6_7

5 (3.7%)

2 (3.0%)

3 (4.5%)

fam_income

134

0.960

10001_12000

6 (4.5%)

2 (3.0%)

4 (6.0%)

12001_14000

7 (5.2%)

3 (4.5%)

4 (6.0%)

14001_16000

6 (4.5%)

2 (3.0%)

4 (6.0%)

16001_18000

3 (2.2%)

1 (1.5%)

2 (3.0%)

18001_20000

5 (3.7%)

3 (4.5%)

2 (3.0%)

20001_above

26 (19%)

15 (22%)

11 (16%)

2001_4000

19 (14%)

11 (16%)

8 (12%)

4001_6000

14 (10%)

6 (9.0%)

8 (12%)

6001_8000

11 (8.2%)

6 (9.0%)

5 (7.5%)

8001_10000

10 (7.5%)

4 (6.0%)

6 (9.0%)

below_2000

27 (20%)

14 (21%)

13 (19%)

medication

134

118 (88%)

59 (88%)

59 (88%)

>0.999

onset_duration

131

15.31 ± 10.27 (0 - 56)

16.10 ± 11.08 (0 - 56)

14.49 ± 9.36 (0 - 35)

0.372

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

129

35.67 ± 14.14 (10 - 65)

34.80 ± 12.79 (10 - 61)

36.54 ± 15.44 (14 - 65)

0.487

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1341

control, N = 671

treatment, N = 671

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

134

3.22 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

3.28 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.15 ± 1.13 (1 - 5)

0.509

recovery_stage_b

134

17.99 ± 2.81 (8 - 24)

17.88 ± 2.99 (8 - 24)

18.09 ± 2.63 (13 - 24)

0.668

ras_confidence

134

30.18 ± 5.01 (17 - 45)

29.94 ± 4.63 (17 - 40)

30.42 ± 5.39 (18 - 45)

0.583

ras_willingness

134

11.82 ± 2.06 (5 - 15)

11.70 ± 1.98 (5 - 15)

11.94 ± 2.14 (7 - 15)

0.504

ras_goal

134

17.39 ± 3.09 (11 - 25)

17.21 ± 2.88 (11 - 24)

17.57 ± 3.30 (11 - 25)

0.505

ras_reliance

134

13.32 ± 2.92 (5 - 20)

13.13 ± 2.80 (5 - 18)

13.51 ± 3.06 (7 - 20)

0.462

ras_domination

134

9.99 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

10.21 ± 2.31 (3 - 15)

9.76 ± 2.47 (3 - 15)

0.281

symptom

134

29.81 ± 9.29 (14 - 56)

29.87 ± 9.48 (14 - 55)

29.76 ± 9.18 (15 - 56)

0.948

slof_work

134

22.57 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.84 ± 4.27 (13 - 30)

22.31 ± 5.01 (10 - 30)

0.517

slof_relationship

134

25.39 ± 5.92 (9 - 35)

25.00 ± 5.95 (9 - 35)

25.78 ± 5.90 (11 - 35)

0.450

satisfaction

134

20.90 ± 7.11 (5 - 35)

20.19 ± 6.84 (5 - 33)

21.61 ± 7.35 (5 - 35)

0.250

mhc_emotional

134

11.11 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.81 ± 3.71 (3 - 17)

11.42 ± 3.80 (4 - 18)

0.347

mhc_social

134

15.22 ± 5.51 (5 - 30)

15.01 ± 5.53 (5 - 30)

15.43 ± 5.52 (5 - 29)

0.662

mhc_psychological

134

22.17 ± 6.38 (6 - 36)

21.91 ± 6.11 (7 - 36)

22.43 ± 6.67 (6 - 36)

0.637

resilisnce

134

16.78 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)

17.37 ± 5.05 (7 - 30)

0.141

social_provision

134

13.69 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.25 ± 2.53 (5 - 20)

14.12 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)

0.077

els_value_living

134

17.03 ± 3.14 (5 - 25)

16.58 ± 2.90 (6 - 22)

17.48 ± 3.31 (5 - 25)

0.099

els_life_fulfill

134

12.79 ± 3.46 (4 - 20)

12.30 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)

13.28 ± 3.55 (4 - 20)

0.099

els

134

29.82 ± 5.97 (9 - 45)

28.88 ± 5.51 (11 - 38)

30.76 ± 6.31 (9 - 45)

0.068

social_connect

134

26.25 ± 9.27 (8 - 48)

26.88 ± 9.16 (8 - 48)

25.63 ± 9.40 (8 - 48)

0.436

shs_agency

134

14.43 ± 5.19 (3 - 24)

13.94 ± 4.81 (3 - 21)

14.93 ± 5.54 (3 - 24)

0.274

shs_pathway

134

16.19 ± 4.02 (4 - 24)

15.84 ± 3.86 (5 - 24)

16.55 ± 4.18 (4 - 24)

0.304

shs

134

30.63 ± 8.82 (7 - 48)

29.78 ± 8.31 (8 - 45)

31.48 ± 9.29 (7 - 48)

0.266

esteem

134

12.60 ± 1.65 (9 - 20)

12.66 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.55 ± 1.70 (10 - 20)

0.716

mlq_search

134

14.83 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)

14.66 ± 3.36 (6 - 21)

15.00 ± 3.79 (3 - 21)

0.580

mlq_presence

134

13.55 ± 4.23 (3 - 21)

13.36 ± 3.84 (4 - 21)

13.75 ± 4.60 (3 - 21)

0.597

mlq

134

28.38 ± 6.99 (6 - 42)

28.01 ± 6.32 (10 - 40)

28.75 ± 7.63 (6 - 42)

0.547

empower

134

19.33 ± 4.32 (6 - 30)

18.96 ± 4.20 (11 - 30)

19.70 ± 4.43 (6 - 30)

0.319

ismi_resistance

134

14.58 ± 2.54 (5 - 20)

14.51 ± 2.20 (10 - 20)

14.66 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

0.736

ismi_discrimation

134

11.51 ± 3.15 (5 - 20)

11.97 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.04 ± 3.15 (5 - 20)

0.089

sss_affective

134

9.86 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

10.06 ± 3.55 (3 - 18)

9.66 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

0.512

sss_behavior

134

9.56 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

9.90 ± 3.94 (3 - 18)

9.22 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

0.301

sss_cognitive

134

8.06 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

8.21 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

7.91 ± 3.51 (3 - 18)

0.636

sss

134

27.48 ± 10.03 (9 - 54)

28.16 ± 10.36 (9 - 54)

26.79 ± 9.71 (9 - 54)

0.430

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.28

0.140

3.01, 3.56

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.134

0.199

-0.524, 0.255

0.500

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.046

0.235

-0.414, 0.507

0.845

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.435

0.335

-0.221, 1.09

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.018

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.353

17.2, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.209

0.499

-0.768, 1.19

0.676

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.294

0.546

-1.36, 0.776

0.592

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.690

0.778

-0.836, 2.22

0.378

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.9

0.624

28.7, 31.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.478

0.882

-1.25, 2.21

0.589

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.734

0.751

-0.739, 2.21

0.332

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.02

1.072

-1.08, 3.13

0.343

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.252

11.2, 12.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.239

0.357

-0.460, 0.938

0.504

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.590

0.299

-1.18, -0.004

0.053

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.796

0.427

-0.040, 1.63

0.067

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.387

16.4, 18.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.358

0.548

-0.716, 1.43

0.514

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.389

0.497

-1.36, 0.585

0.436

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.52

0.709

0.134, 2.91

0.035

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.356

12.4, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.373

0.503

-0.613, 1.36

0.459

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.353

0.406

-0.442, 1.15

0.388

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.00

0.579

-0.133, 2.14

0.088

Pseudo R square

0.035

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.2

0.287

9.65, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.448

0.406

-1.24, 0.348

0.271

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.260

0.427

-1.10, 0.577

0.544

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.31

0.609

0.120, 2.51

0.035

Pseudo R square

0.021

symptom

(Intercept)

29.9

1.139

27.6, 32.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.104

1.611

-3.26, 3.05

0.948

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.111

1.086

-2.24, 2.02

0.919

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.40

1.551

-4.44, 1.64

0.369

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.8

0.567

21.7, 23.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.522

0.802

-2.09, 1.05

0.516

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.308

0.650

-1.58, 0.966

0.637

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.382

0.928

-1.44, 2.20

0.682

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.0

0.719

23.6, 26.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.776

1.017

-1.22, 2.77

0.447

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.17

0.772

-2.68, 0.348

0.137

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.88

1.102

-0.276, 4.05

0.092

Pseudo R square

0.018

satisfaction

(Intercept)

20.2

0.874

18.5, 21.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.42

1.236

-1.00, 3.84

0.253

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.526

1.071

-1.57, 2.62

0.625

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.478

1.528

-2.52, 3.47

0.755

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.455

9.91, 11.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.612

0.644

-0.650, 1.87

0.343

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.358

0.502

-0.625, 1.34

0.478

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.231

0.716

-1.63, 1.17

0.748

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.0

0.693

13.7, 16.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.418

0.979

-1.50, 2.34

0.670

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.638

0.870

-1.07, 2.34

0.467

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.420

1.242

-2.85, 2.01

0.736

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.9

0.805

20.3, 23.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.522

1.138

-1.71, 2.75

0.647

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.659

0.983

-1.27, 2.59

0.505

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.060

1.403

-2.81, 2.69

0.966

Pseudo R square

0.003

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.559

15.1, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.19

0.791

-0.356, 2.74

0.133

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.165

0.712

-1.23, 1.56

0.817

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.33

1.016

-0.659, 3.32

0.194

Pseudo R square

0.039

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.349

12.6, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.866

0.493

-0.101, 1.83

0.081

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.575

0.466

-1.49, 0.338

0.221

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.712

0.665

-0.591, 2.01

0.288

Pseudo R square

0.038

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.386

15.8, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.896

0.546

-0.174, 1.97

0.103

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.267

0.483

-0.679, 1.21

0.582

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.216

0.689

-1.13, 1.57

0.755

Pseudo R square

0.025

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.414

11.5, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.985

0.585

-0.161, 2.13

0.094

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.558

0.411

-0.247, 1.36

0.179

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.239

0.586

-1.39, 0.910

0.686

Pseudo R square

0.022

els

(Intercept)

28.9

0.727

27.5, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.88

1.029

-0.135, 3.90

0.070

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.791

0.749

-0.676, 2.26

0.295

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.014

1.068

-2.08, 2.11

0.989

Pseudo R square

0.028

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.147

24.6, 29.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.25

1.623

-4.43, 1.93

0.441

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.28

1.213

-1.10, 3.66

0.295

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.67

1.731

-7.06, -0.277

0.038

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.632

12.7, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.985

0.893

-0.766, 2.74

0.272

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.088

0.683

-1.25, 1.43

0.898

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.748

0.975

-1.16, 2.66

0.446

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.8

0.487

14.9, 16.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.716

0.688

-0.632, 2.07

0.300

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.172

0.527

-0.861, 1.20

0.745

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.047

0.752

-1.52, 1.43

0.951

Pseudo R square

0.008

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.068

27.7, 31.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.70

1.510

-1.26, 4.66

0.262

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.260

1.108

-1.91, 2.43

0.816

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.688

1.581

-2.41, 3.79

0.665

Pseudo R square

0.013

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.190

12.3, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.104

0.269

-0.631, 0.422

0.698

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.044

0.306

-0.557, 0.644

0.888

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.142

0.437

-0.715, 0.998

0.747

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.7

0.431

13.8, 15.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.343

0.609

-0.850, 1.54

0.574

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.183

0.600

-0.993, 1.36

0.762

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.238

0.856

-1.91, 1.44

0.782

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.513

12.4, 14.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.388

0.725

-1.03, 1.81

0.593

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.256

0.634

-0.986, 1.50

0.687

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.002

0.904

-1.77, 1.77

0.998

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.0

0.853

26.3, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.731

1.207

-1.63, 3.10

0.545

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.442

1.094

-1.70, 2.59

0.688

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.219

1.561

-3.28, 2.84

0.889

Pseudo R square

0.003

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.528

17.9, 20.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.746

0.746

-0.716, 2.21

0.319

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.181

0.550

-0.897, 1.26

0.744

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.470

0.785

-2.01, 1.07

0.551

Pseudo R square

0.006

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.306

13.9, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.149

0.433

-0.700, 0.998

0.731

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.030

0.451

-0.914, 0.853

0.947

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.491

0.643

-0.768, 1.75

0.447

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.385

11.2, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.925

0.544

-1.99, 0.141

0.091

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.355

0.459

-1.25, 0.545

0.442

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.328

0.655

-0.956, 1.61

0.619

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.426

9.22, 10.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.403

0.603

-1.59, 0.779

0.505

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.152

0.496

-0.820, 1.13

0.760

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.16

0.708

-2.55, 0.227

0.106

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.90

0.451

9.01, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.672

0.637

-1.92, 0.577

0.294

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.012

0.536

-1.06, 1.04

0.982

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.667

0.765

-2.17, 0.832

0.386

Pseudo R square

0.017

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.21

0.441

7.35, 9.07

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.299

0.623

-1.52, 0.923

0.633

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.716

0.519

-0.302, 1.73

0.172

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.35

0.741

-2.80, 0.107

0.074

Pseudo R square

0.016

sss

(Intercept)

28.2

1.217

25.8, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.37

1.721

-4.75, 2.00

0.426

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.799

1.318

-1.78, 3.38

0.547

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.04

1.880

-6.73, 0.643

0.111

Pseudo R square

0.018

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [3.01, 3.56], t(181) = 23.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.26], t(181) = -0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51], t(181) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.09], t(181) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.19, 18.57], t(181) = 50.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.19], t(181) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.78], t(181) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.22], t(181) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.94 (95% CI [28.72, 31.16], t(181) = 48.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.21], t(181) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.21], t(181) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.13], t(181) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.70 (95% CI [11.21, 12.20], t(181) = 46.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.94], t(181) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.18, -3.55e-03], t(181) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.57, -1.73e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.63], t(181) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.21 (95% CI [16.45, 17.97], t(181) = 44.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.43], t(181) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.58], t(181) = -0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [0.13, 2.91], t(181) = 2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.04, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.13 (95% CI [12.44, 13.83], t(181) = 36.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.36], t(181) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.15], t(181) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.14], t(181) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.65, 10.77], t(181) = 35.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.35], t(181) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.58], t(181) = -0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [0.12, 2.51], t(181) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.05, 1.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [27.63, 32.10], t(181) = 26.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-3.26, 3.05], t(181) = -0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.24, 2.02], t(181) = -0.10, p = 0.919; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-4.44, 1.64], t(181) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.84 (95% CI [21.72, 23.95], t(181) = 40.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.05], t(181) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.97], t(181) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.20], t(181) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.00 (95% CI [23.59, 26.41], t(181) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.22, 2.77], t(181) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.35], t(181) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.28, 4.05], t(181) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.19 (95% CI [18.48, 21.91], t(181) = 23.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.84], t(181) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.57, 2.62], t(181) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-2.52, 3.47], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.81 (95% CI [9.91, 11.70], t(181) = 23.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.87], t(181) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.34], t(181) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.17], t(181) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.01 (95% CI [13.66, 16.37], t(181) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.34], t(181) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.34], t(181) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.85, 2.01], t(181) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.91 (95% CI [20.33, 23.49], t(181) = 27.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.75], t(181) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.59], t(181) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.81, 2.69], t(181) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -9.18e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.08, 17.28], t(181) = 28.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.74], t(181) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.56], t(181) = 0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.32], t(181) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.57, 13.94], t(181) = 38.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.83], t(181) = 1.75, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.34], t(181) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.01], t(181) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [15.83, 17.34], t(181) = 42.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.97], t(181) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.21], t(181) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.57], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.30 (95% CI [11.49, 13.11], t(181) = 29.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.13], t(181) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.36], t(181) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.91], t(181) = -0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.88 (95% CI [27.46, 30.31], t(181) = 39.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.14, 3.90], t(181) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.26], t(181) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.11], t(181) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 2.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.88 (95% CI [24.63, 29.13], t(181) = 23.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-4.43, 1.93], t(181) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-1.10, 3.66], t(181) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.67, 95% CI [-7.06, -0.28], t(181) = -2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.74, -0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.94 (95% CI [12.70, 15.18], t(181) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.77, 2.74], t(181) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.43], t(181) = 0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.66], t(181) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.84 (95% CI [14.88, 16.79], t(181) = 32.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.07], t(181) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.20], t(181) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.43], t(181) = -0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.78 (95% CI [27.68, 31.87], t(181) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-1.26, 4.66], t(181) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.43], t(181) = 0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-2.41, 3.79], t(181) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.66 (95% CI [12.28, 13.03], t(181) = 66.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.42], t(181) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.64], t(181) = 0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.00], t(181) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.66 (95% CI [13.81, 15.50], t(181) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.54], t(181) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.36], t(181) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.44], t(181) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.36 (95% CI [12.35, 14.36], t(181) = 26.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.81], t(181) = 0.54, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.50], t(181) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.05e-03, 95% CI [-1.77, 1.77], t(181) = 2.26e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = 4.92e-04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.01 (95% CI [26.34, 29.69], t(181) = 32.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.63, 3.10], t(181) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.59], t(181) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-3.28, 2.84], t(181) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.96 (95% CI [17.92, 19.99], t(181) = 35.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.21], t(181) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.26], t(181) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.07], t(181) = -0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.51 (95% CI [13.91, 15.11], t(181) = 47.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.00], t(181) = 0.34, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.85], t(181) = -0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.75], t(181) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.22, 12.72], t(181) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.14], t(181) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.54], t(181) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.61], t(181) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.22, 10.90], t(181) = 23.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.78], t(181) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.13], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.23], t(181) = -1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.90 (95% CI [9.01, 10.78], t(181) = 21.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.92, 0.58], t(181) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.04], t(181) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -3.32e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.83], t(181) = -0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.21 (95% CI [7.35, 9.07], t(181) = 18.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.92], t(181) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.73], t(181) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-2.80, 0.11], t(181) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.16 (95% CI [25.78, 30.55], t(181) = 23.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.75, 2.00], t(181) = -0.80, p = 0.425; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.38], t(181) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.04, 95% CI [-6.73, 0.64], t(181) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

584.573

594.267

-289.287

578.573

recovery_stage_a

random

6

586.404

605.791

-287.202

574.404

4.169

3

0.244

recovery_stage_b

null

3

920.475

930.168

-457.237

914.475

recovery_stage_b

random

6

924.992

944.379

-456.496

912.992

1.482

3

0.686

ras_confidence

null

3

1,116.756

1,126.449

-555.378

1,110.756

ras_confidence

random

6

1,115.929

1,135.316

-551.965

1,103.929

6.826

3

0.078

ras_willingness

null

3

775.482

785.176

-384.741

769.482

ras_willingness

random

6

775.768

795.155

-381.884

763.768

5.714

3

0.126

ras_goal

null

3

945.110

954.804

-469.555

939.110

ras_goal

random

6

943.836

963.223

-465.918

931.836

7.274

3

0.064

ras_reliance

null

3

907.007

916.701

-450.504

901.007

ras_reliance

random

6

900.601

919.987

-444.300

888.601

12.407

3

0.006

ras_domination

null

3

844.873

854.566

-419.436

838.873

ras_domination

random

6

844.778

864.165

-416.389

832.778

6.094

3

0.107

symptom

null

3

1,314.119

1,323.812

-654.059

1,308.119

symptom

random

6

1,318.151

1,337.538

-653.076

1,306.151

1.967

3

0.579

slof_work

null

3

1,070.215

1,079.908

-532.108

1,064.215

slof_work

random

6

1,075.647

1,095.034

-531.824

1,063.647

0.568

3

0.904

slof_relationship

null

3

1,156.678

1,166.371

-575.339

1,150.678

slof_relationship

random

6

1,158.141

1,177.527

-573.070

1,146.141

4.538

3

0.209

satisfaction

null

3

1,240.516

1,250.210

-617.258

1,234.516

satisfaction

random

6

1,243.767

1,263.153

-615.883

1,231.767

2.749

3

0.432

mhc_emotional

null

3

984.871

994.565

-489.436

978.871

mhc_emotional

random

6

989.472

1,008.859

-488.736

977.472

1.399

3

0.706

mhc_social

null

3

1,153.864

1,163.557

-573.932

1,147.864

mhc_social

random

6

1,159.131

1,178.518

-573.566

1,147.131

0.733

3

0.865

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,207.631

1,217.325

-600.816

1,201.631

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,212.586

1,231.973

-600.293

1,200.586

1.045

3

0.790

resilisnce

null

3

1,082.481

1,092.174

-538.240

1,076.481

resilisnce

random

6

1,080.431

1,099.817

-534.215

1,068.431

8.050

3

0.045

social_provision

null

3

908.698

918.391

-451.349

902.698

social_provision

random

6

908.287

927.673

-448.143

896.287

6.411

3

0.093

els_value_living

null

3

938.537

948.231

-466.269

932.537

els_value_living

random

6

940.009

959.396

-464.005

928.009

4.528

3

0.210

els_life_fulfill

null

3

942.479

952.172

-468.239

936.479

els_life_fulfill

random

6

943.343

962.730

-465.672

931.343

5.135

3

0.162

els

null

3

1,157.806

1,167.499

-575.903

1,151.806

els

random

6

1,158.034

1,177.421

-573.017

1,146.034

5.772

3

0.123

social_connect

null

3

1,331.680

1,341.373

-662.840

1,325.680

social_connect

random

6

1,331.188

1,350.574

-659.594

1,319.188

6.492

3

0.090

shs_agency

null

3

1,107.411

1,117.105

-550.706

1,101.411

shs_agency

random

6

1,110.174

1,129.561

-549.087

1,098.174

3.238

3

0.356

shs_pathway

null

3

1,008.016

1,017.710

-501.008

1,002.016

shs_pathway

random

6

1,012.733

1,032.120

-500.367

1,000.733

1.283

3

0.733

shs

null

3

1,298.713

1,308.407

-646.357

1,292.713

shs

random

6

1,302.353

1,321.740

-645.177

1,290.353

2.360

3

0.501

esteem

null

3

691.319

701.012

-342.659

685.319

esteem

random

6

696.849

716.235

-342.424

684.849

0.470

3

0.925

mlq_search

null

3

985.210

994.904

-489.605

979.210

mlq_search

random

6

990.852

1,010.239

-489.426

978.852

0.358

3

0.949

mlq_presence

null

3

1,039.811

1,049.504

-516.905

1,033.811

mlq_presence

random

6

1,045.163

1,064.550

-516.582

1,033.163

0.647

3

0.886

mlq

null

3

1,233.706

1,243.400

-613.853

1,227.706

mlq

random

6

1,239.144

1,258.531

-613.572

1,227.144

0.562

3

0.905

empower

null

3

1,034.335

1,044.029

-514.168

1,028.335

empower

random

6

1,039.148

1,058.535

-513.574

1,027.148

1.187

3

0.756

ismi_resistance

null

3

863.667

873.360

-428.833

857.667

ismi_resistance

random

6

868.203

887.590

-428.101

856.203

1.464

3

0.691

ismi_discrimation

null

3

931.598

941.292

-462.799

925.598

ismi_discrimation

random

6

934.330

953.717

-461.165

922.330

3.268

3

0.352

sss_affective

null

3

969.841

979.535

-481.921

963.841

sss_affective

random

6

970.468

989.854

-479.234

958.468

5.374

3

0.146

sss_behavior

null

3

990.475

1,000.168

-492.237

984.475

sss_behavior

random

6

993.141

1,012.528

-490.571

981.141

3.333

3

0.343

sss_cognitive

null

3

982.280

991.974

-488.140

976.280

sss_cognitive

random

6

983.945

1,003.331

-485.972

971.945

4.336

3

0.227

sss

null

3

1,354.271

1,363.964

-674.135

1,348.271

sss

random

6

1,355.602

1,374.988

-671.801

1,343.602

4.669

3

0.198

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

67

3.28 ± 1.15

67

3.15 ± 1.15

0.500

0.138

recovery_stage_a

2nd

27

3.33 ± 1.13

-0.047

26

3.63 ± 1.13

-0.495

0.335

-0.309

recovery_stage_b

1st

67

17.88 ± 2.89

67

18.09 ± 2.89

0.676

-0.095

recovery_stage_b

2nd

27

17.59 ± 2.76

0.133

26

18.49 ± 2.75

-0.179

0.237

-0.407

ras_confidence

1st

67

29.94 ± 5.10

67

30.42 ± 5.10

0.589

-0.164

ras_confidence

2nd

27

30.67 ± 4.37

-0.253

26

32.18 ± 4.35

-0.605

0.212

-0.517

ras_willingness

1st

67

11.70 ± 2.06

67

11.94 ± 2.06

0.504

-0.207

ras_willingness

2nd

27

11.11 ± 1.76

0.511

26

12.15 ± 1.75

-0.179

0.033

-0.897

ras_goal

1st

67

17.21 ± 3.17

67

17.57 ± 3.17

0.514

-0.185

ras_goal

2nd

27

16.82 ± 2.79

0.201

26

18.70 ± 2.78

-0.586

0.015

-0.971

ras_reliance

1st

67

13.13 ± 2.91

67

13.51 ± 2.91

0.459

-0.239

ras_reliance

2nd

27

13.49 ± 2.44

-0.226

26

14.86 ± 2.42

-0.869

0.041

-0.882

ras_domination

1st

67

10.21 ± 2.35

67

9.76 ± 2.35

0.271

0.262

ras_domination

2nd

27

9.95 ± 2.21

0.152

26

10.81 ± 2.20

-0.616

0.154

-0.506

symptom

1st

67

29.87 ± 9.32

67

29.76 ± 9.32

0.948

0.025

symptom

2nd

27

29.75 ± 7.31

0.027

26

28.25 ± 7.25

0.368

0.452

0.367

slof_work

1st

67

22.84 ± 4.64

67

22.31 ± 4.64

0.516

0.209

slof_work

2nd

27

22.53 ± 3.89

0.123

26

22.39 ± 3.87

-0.030

0.896

0.056

slof_relationship

1st

67

25.00 ± 5.89

67

25.78 ± 5.89

0.447

-0.263

slof_relationship

2nd

27

23.83 ± 4.82

0.395

26

26.50 ± 4.79

-0.244

0.045

-0.902

satisfaction

1st

67

20.19 ± 7.15

67

21.61 ± 7.15

0.253

-0.342

satisfaction

2nd

27

20.72 ± 6.17

-0.127

26

22.62 ± 6.14

-0.242

0.264

-0.457

mhc_emotional

1st

67

10.81 ± 3.73

67

11.42 ± 3.73

0.343

-0.319

mhc_emotional

2nd

27

11.16 ± 3.08

-0.186

26

11.54 ± 3.06

-0.066

0.652

-0.198

mhc_social

1st

67

15.01 ± 5.67

67

15.43 ± 5.67

0.670

-0.124

mhc_social

2nd

27

15.65 ± 4.94

-0.188

26

15.65 ± 4.92

-0.064

0.999

0.001

mhc_psychological

1st

67

21.91 ± 6.59

67

22.43 ± 6.59

0.647

-0.137

mhc_psychological

2nd

27

22.57 ± 5.67

-0.173

26

23.03 ± 5.65

-0.157

0.767

-0.121

resilisnce

1st

67

16.18 ± 4.58

67

17.37 ± 4.58

0.133

-0.431

resilisnce

2nd

27

16.34 ± 4.01

-0.060

26

18.87 ± 4.00

-0.540

0.023

-0.911

social_provision

1st

67

13.25 ± 2.86

67

14.12 ± 2.86

0.081

-0.474

social_provision

2nd

27

12.68 ± 2.55

0.315

26

14.26 ± 2.55

-0.075

0.026

-0.863

els_value_living

1st

67

16.58 ± 3.16

67

17.48 ± 3.16

0.103

-0.477

els_value_living

2nd

27

16.85 ± 2.75

-0.142

26

17.96 ± 2.74

-0.258

0.142

-0.592

els_life_fulfill

1st

67

12.30 ± 3.39

67

13.28 ± 3.39

0.094

-0.632

els_life_fulfill

2nd

27

12.86 ± 2.69

-0.358

26

13.60 ± 2.67

-0.205

0.312

-0.479

els

1st

67

28.88 ± 5.95

67

30.76 ± 5.95

0.070

-0.660

els

2nd

27

29.67 ± 4.79

-0.278

26

31.57 ± 4.76

-0.283

0.151

-0.665

social_connect

1st

67

26.88 ± 9.39

67

25.63 ± 9.39

0.441

0.271

social_connect

2nd

27

28.16 ± 7.64

-0.277

26

23.24 ± 7.59

0.516

0.020

1.064

shs_agency

1st

67

13.94 ± 5.17

67

14.93 ± 5.17

0.272

-0.377

shs_agency

2nd

27

14.03 ± 4.24

-0.034

26

15.76 ± 4.21

-0.320

0.137

-0.664

shs_pathway

1st

67

15.84 ± 3.98

67

16.55 ± 3.98

0.300

-0.356

shs_pathway

2nd

27

16.01 ± 3.27

-0.085

26

16.68 ± 3.25

-0.062

0.455

-0.332

shs

1st

67

29.78 ± 8.74

67

31.48 ± 8.74

0.262

-0.403

shs

2nd

27

30.04 ± 7.06

-0.062

26

32.43 ± 7.01

-0.225

0.218

-0.566

esteem

1st

67

12.66 ± 1.55

67

12.55 ± 1.55

0.698

0.083

esteem

2nd

27

12.70 ± 1.51

-0.035

26

12.74 ± 1.51

-0.148

0.929

-0.030

mlq_search

1st

67

14.66 ± 3.52

67

15.00 ± 3.52

0.574

-0.145

mlq_search

2nd

27

14.84 ± 3.21

-0.077

26

14.95 ± 3.20

0.023

0.905

-0.045

mlq_presence

1st

67

13.36 ± 4.20

67

13.75 ± 4.20

0.593

-0.158

mlq_presence

2nd

27

13.61 ± 3.63

-0.104

26

14.00 ± 3.62

-0.105

0.696

-0.159

mlq

1st

67

28.01 ± 6.99

67

28.75 ± 6.99

0.545

-0.171

mlq

2nd

27

28.46 ± 6.14

-0.104

26

28.97 ± 6.12

-0.052

0.761

-0.120

empower

1st

67

18.96 ± 4.32

67

19.70 ± 4.32

0.319

-0.356

empower

2nd

27

19.14 ± 3.49

-0.086

26

19.41 ± 3.47

0.138

0.773

-0.132

ismi_resistance

1st

67

14.51 ± 2.51

67

14.66 ± 2.51

0.731

-0.083

ismi_resistance

2nd

27

14.48 ± 2.34

0.017

26

15.12 ± 2.34

-0.256

0.320

-0.356

ismi_discrimation

1st

67

11.97 ± 3.15

67

11.04 ± 3.15

0.091

0.522

ismi_discrimation

2nd

27

11.62 ± 2.68

0.200

26

11.02 ± 2.67

0.015

0.418

0.337

sss_affective

1st

67

10.06 ± 3.49

67

9.66 ± 3.49

0.505

0.211

sss_affective

2nd

27

10.21 ± 2.95

-0.080

26

8.65 ± 2.93

0.528

0.054

0.818

sss_behavior

1st

67

9.90 ± 3.69

67

9.22 ± 3.69

0.294

0.325

sss_behavior

2nd

27

9.88 ± 3.14

0.006

26

8.54 ± 3.13

0.328

0.122

0.647

sss_cognitive

1st

67

8.21 ± 3.61

67

7.91 ± 3.61

0.633

0.149

sss_cognitive

2nd

27

8.93 ± 3.06

-0.358

26

7.28 ± 3.05

0.314

0.052

0.821

sss

1st

67

28.16 ± 9.96

67

26.79 ± 9.96

0.426

0.273

sss

2nd

27

28.96 ± 8.17

-0.159

26

24.55 ± 8.12

0.445

0.050

0.877

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(175.44) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.26)

2st

t(173.98) = 0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(168.05) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.19)

2st

t(167.91) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.39)

ras_confidence

1st

t(151.00) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.22)

2st

t(168.90) = 1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.86 to 3.87)

ras_willingness

1st

t(150.26) = 0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.94)

2st

t(169.62) = 2.15, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.98)

ras_goal

1st

t(154.21) = 0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.44)

2st

t(166.57) = 2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.37 to 3.39)

ras_reliance

1st

t(148.62) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.37)

2st

t(171.44) = 2.06, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.69)

ras_domination

1st

t(164.61) = -1.10, p = 0.271, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.35)

2st

t(166.18) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.06)

symptom

1st

t(142.87) = -0.06, p = 0.948, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.29 to 3.08)

2st

t(179.74) = -0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-5.46 to 2.44)

slof_work

1st

t(148.82) = -0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.11 to 1.06)

2st

t(171.21) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.25 to 1.97)

slof_relationship

1st

t(146.35) = 0.76, p = 0.447, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.79)

2st

t(174.48) = 2.02, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.06 to 5.26)

satisfaction

1st

t(151.80) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.86)

2st

t(168.21) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.44 to 5.23)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(147.28) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.88)

2st

t(173.17) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.05)

mhc_social

1st

t(153.11) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.35)

2st

t(167.23) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.68 to 2.67)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(151.66) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.77)

2st

t(168.32) = 0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.61 to 3.53)

resilisnce

1st

t(153.81) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.76)

2st

t(166.79) = 2.30, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.35 to 4.70)

social_provision

1st

t(156.63) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.84)

2st

t(165.58) = 2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.96)

els_value_living

1st

t(152.87) = 1.64, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.97)

2st

t(167.39) = 1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.60)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(143.94) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.14)

2st

t(178.13) = 1.01, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.20)

els

1st

t(144.98) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.15 to 3.91)

2st

t(176.52) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.70 to 4.49)

social_connect

1st

t(145.84) = -0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.46 to 1.95)

2st

t(175.23) = -2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.06, 95% CI (-9.05 to -0.80)

shs_agency

1st

t(146.59) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.75)

2st

t(174.14) = 1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.56 to 4.02)

shs_pathway

1st

t(146.65) = 1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.08)

2st

t(174.05) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.44)

shs

1st

t(145.23) = 1.13, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.69)

2st

t(176.15) = 1.24, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.42 to 6.20)

esteem

1st

t(171.92) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.43)

2st

t(170.72) = 0.09, p = 0.929, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.86)

mlq_search

1st

t(159.47) = 0.56, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.55)

2st

t(165.17) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.85)

mlq_presence

1st

t(152.26) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.82)

2st

t(167.84) = 0.39, p = 0.696, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.36)

mlq

1st

t(154.19) = 0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.65 to 3.12)

2st

t(166.58) = 0.30, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.81 to 3.84)

empower

1st

t(145.37) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.22)

2st

t(175.93) = 0.29, p = 0.773, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.61 to 2.16)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(163.63) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.00)

2st

t(165.83) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.91)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(150.54) = -1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.15)

2st

t(169.34) = -0.81, p = 0.418, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.86)

sss_affective

1st

t(149.44) = -0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.79)

2st

t(170.49) = -1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.03)

sss_behavior

1st

t(150.40) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.59)

2st

t(169.47) = -1.55, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.36)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(150.00) = -0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.93)

2st

t(169.89) = -1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.30 to 0.01)

sss

1st

t(146.64) = -0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.77 to 2.03)

2st

t(174.06) = -1.97, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-8.83 to 0.00)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(90.91) = 2.00, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.00 to 0.96)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(80.41) = 0.71, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.51)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(64.11) = 2.29, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.29)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(63.52) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(66.71) = 2.23, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.15)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(62.26) = 3.27, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.53 to 2.18)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(76.51) = 2.41, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.93)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(58.08) = -1.36, p = 0.355, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.74 to 0.71)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(62.41) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.40)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(60.57) = 0.91, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(64.74) = 0.92, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.18 to 3.19)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(61.25) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.15)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(65.80) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.00)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(64.63) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.61)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(66.38) = 2.06, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.95)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(68.79) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(65.61) = 0.98, p = 0.664, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.47)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.83) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.16)

els

1st vs 2st

t(59.58) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.34)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(60.19) = -1.93, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.87 to 0.09)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(60.74) = 1.20, p = 0.472, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.23)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(60.79) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.20)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.75) = 0.84, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.32 to 3.21)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(85.44) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.81)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(71.37) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(65.11) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.55)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(66.70) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.46)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(59.86) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.83)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(75.48) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.38)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(63.74) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.91)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(62.88) = -1.99, p = 0.103, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.01)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(63.63) = -1.24, p = 0.440, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.42)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(63.32) = -1.18, p = 0.481, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.43)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(60.78) = -1.67, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.94 to 0.45)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(89.58) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.52)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(79.48) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.80)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(63.73) = 0.97, p = 0.669, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.24)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(63.17) = -1.96, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(66.26) = -0.78, p = 0.877, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.61)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(61.95) = 0.87, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.17)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(75.72) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.60)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(57.89) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.29 to 2.07)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(62.09) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.00)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(60.31) = -1.50, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.39)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(64.34) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.68)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(60.97) = 0.71, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(65.38) = 0.73, p = 0.938, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.39)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(64.24) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.63)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(65.94) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.59)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(68.26) = -1.23, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(65.19) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.62) = 1.35, p = 0.361, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.38)

els

1st vs 2st

t(59.34) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.29)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(59.94) = 1.05, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.72)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(60.47) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.46)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(60.52) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.23)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.52) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.48)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(84.32) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.66)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(70.76) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.39)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(64.71) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.53)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(66.24) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.64)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(59.62) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.28)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(74.72) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.87)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(63.38) = -0.77, p = 0.889, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(62.55) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.15)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(63.28) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.06)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(62.97) = 1.37, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(60.51) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.85 to 3.44)

Plot

Clinical significance